Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals.
• Consider developing your proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed software changes that have gained consensus should be filed at Bugzilla.
• Proposed policy changes belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.

« Archives, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213

Page mover

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There may be a rough consensus for Sven's counter-proposal, but realistically speaking more editors need to provide their opinions before any action is taken. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Template:Rfcid Template:Rfcid (moved to village pump to generate more consensus, please continue the discussion there.) This is a proposal for a new user right called the pagemover. Propose that this new user right would be able to move pages that have been move protected (move) and the ability to suppress redirects (suppressredirect). Those are pretty much the main idea I have but it was suggested that the movefile user right be include which is something i am not totally for. I would also like for move-subpages to be included which would give users with the pagemover user right to move pages with their associated subpages. As with any user right, there must be baseline requirements. What I propose is that the requirements for the pagemover right is that:

• You must have some formal experience with moving pages.
• You must have at least 500 edits.
• At least 1 month experience

Let me just brief you of the benefits of having a pagemover. It would make the job of administrators a little easier by having someone else to userfy pages. It would also give users other than administrators the exclusive right of moving pages with their subpages. I myself am in opposition to the idea of pagemovers having the ability to move files as there are already two groups that can do that and their is no need for three. This could be done in a trial (Of Lord, the evil Trial word comes back) to see if it is a good idea or not. And with that I leave it to the community.mauchoeagle _(c) 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'm generally supportive, let me ask you the question that I foresee will ultimately shoot this proposal down. If someone can be trusted enough to be given this user right, why can't they be trusted to be an administrator?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alot of respected users of the community were completely shot out of the water (eg My76Strat, Ancient Apparition and Chzz) and this sort of user right would touch the things that admins do without you actually becoming an admin. mauchoeagle _(c) 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Why is this needed? The number of move-protected pages that need to be moved on any given day is vanishingly small; there's not a huge backlog of such pages waiting around to be moved. Why does a special user right need to be granted where "ask an admin to do it" would work just as well? --Jayron32 04:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, another user right to performs such tasks could take a load off of administrators. And the proposal above is not only moving protected pages it also can move pages with there associated subpages and help with userfies. It always helps to have someone else to do a task, such as userfying, when you come accross pages that need to be userfied almost every day. In my experience with new page patrol, I see them alot. mauchoeagle _(c) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't much of a load to take off though. Most pagemoves that require an admin aren't moves of protected pages, they're moves over an existing page; completing these moves requires the ability to delete pages. Pages with subpages are typically established pages (subpages are most frequently used for discussion archives) and are rarely moved. Userfication is really the only one done on a regular basis, but is it that difficult to just move it yourself and put a speedy tag on the redirect? Mr.Z-man 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Although I think that there is very little need for this I can see it could be useful. As one user who has basically lost interest in attempting a run through the gauntlet to become an administrator and who considers the process of choosing one completely and utterly broken (although good folks do become admins so no disrespect intended to them) I think this is a good step towards decoupling the various roles an admin does. In my experience most admins deal in specific things anyway and few use the whole suoite of tools so this would allow those interested in moving pages to do so. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: Do not allow the right to move move-protected pages, only allow (suppressredirect), and up the requirements

This version would only allow suppressredirect, as moving protected pages seems like a bad idea. The requirements would be:

• You must have a demonstrate history of constructive moves.
• You must have at least 3 months of experience.
• You cannot have a history of using moves to vandalize or content war pages.
• You should have a communicable reason for wanting the right.

As one of the more prolific filemovers (currently knee deep in a list of 3000 files that all have to be renamed) this user right would allow me to do my job better, and would save the admins that I work with a great deal of time. If it's never been used in an article, there's no need to keep as a redirect a page named File:DSC01234.jpg or File:IMG02468.jpg when the image itself has been moved to something that's more descriptive. There are plenty of other people that work in plenty of other areas that could all benefit from this.

I do not, however, see any reason why allowing non-admins to move a move protected page around is a good idea. For the very tiny number of instances where it would be constructive, an admin is just a template posting or IRC chat away.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the move-subpages right? mauchoeagle _(c) 20:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see all three components as having the potential for chaos should a vandal get a hold of the right, however from personal experience (someone moved my userpage to the mainspace once) I can tell you that an admin can fix straight up move vandalism in less than 30 seconds. I see no reason why it would take any longer to fix move vandalism if the subpages are also taken for a ride. The only component I specificly object to giving out as a right is the ability to move the move-protected pages. Especially when we get into template dependencies and trasnclusions, this could cause serious, widespread damage with a minimal amount of vandalism actions, and is much harder to clean up.

To some degree, the other issue is that I fully expect admins to grant rights to people that in no way deserve those rights, either in willful disregard for the guidelines, or because they don't care enough to even check the guidelines. I saw it with filemover. I'm not going to pretend that this isn't going to be given out like candy to both trustworthy people that will never use the right and untrustworthy people that just keep asking until they get lucky. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "suppress-redirect" is a mere convenience for admins, to save having to create a redirect page as part of a move and then delete it after when it's not needed. Particularly for admins doing a lot of a certain type of work, it saves quite a bit of time, and is a bit neater. I'm sceptical about the proliferation of user rights generally (given the misuse issues Sven mentions above), and this one just doesn't seem worth the hassle of managing, and the associated risks. Risks being, most notably, that abuses of suppress-redirect can make inappropriate page moves (or even page move vandalism) harder to catch. Users can just CSD the redirect. Moving subpages is needed less often, and probably carries less risk, but again it doesn't seem worth the trouble to separate it out, especially if it doesn't come with suppress-redirect. Rd232 ^talk 10:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Moving subpages carries less risk? That's a good one. Some rather nasty pagemove vandals have been known to use that option on things such as userpages with lots of subpages, and are thus able to vandalize upwards of twenty pages within a minute. Moving subpages is a right which is hardly used anyways, and has a massive potential for abuse. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I did say probably... I was thinking it's no harder to undo than ordinary pagemove vandalism, and the subpages (especially of non-move-protected pages) aren't normally of particular prominence. Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  Much harder to revert, considering that most people don't recognize it as that type of vandalism, and revert each one separately - then users without the noratelimit right get stuck by a rate limit after two reverts. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One possibility which might be useful is to allow editors to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a (userspace draft) page out of their own userspace into mainspace. That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. This would require a software change of some sort, but once done it wouldn't require any management. Rd232 ^talk 15:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• If this was going to be devolved from admins then it sounds like one of the least controversial accesses. move without creating a redirect, and move subpages, override title black list, and no rate limit on moves sounds like a reasonable package to grant as a right. However there must be some limit to the number of different rights before it just gets too confusing for people to understand. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support this would make files work so much better. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'm not normally one to support new userrights, but for those of you who don't do NPP you'd be shocked at the absolutely horrific page titles we come across sometimes. I've got hundreds of page moves in my log, and a good number of them are 1. names like BANURI VILLAGE (HIMACHAL PRADESH) from non-native speakers whose often horrendously mangled English isn't confined to the article body and/or 2. titles with missing or extra spaces. This would make it far more efficient; it wouldn't entirely do away with R3, as it seems many NPPers are not very experienced, and sometimes people create redirects that don't quite meet G3 but are clearly implausible anyways (Media shitstorm being created as a redirect to Media circus or Aught-six being redirected to 1906, for instance), but it would definitely help streamline NPP for those of us who know what they're doing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Although I might also suggest simply adding this to the filemover user right, as file redirects should be deleted anyway. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Alpha Quadrant. @Alpha Quadrant: not all redirects are invalid though, common misnomers and so forth are worth retaining. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:00pm • 06:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Another counter-proposal

We allow suppress-redirect, and move-subpages. We also merge it with filemover.

• At least 2000 edits;
• Knows all applicable policies;
• Good reason for wanting the right;
• No vandalism or edit-war from past 2 months history.

Thoughts? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know; suppress-redirect and move-subpages don't entail quite the same things. I'd certainly qualify for the first two, but I do essentially no image work so I wouldn't be good for the third. On NPP, I could definitely use the ability to move without a redirect, for reasons I detailed above; I don't need the ability to move files. But perhaps I'm the exception; if that proves to be true, it would make more sense to combine them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I am lost; why, would move-subpages be needed with File mover? Kind lost in space there. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 01:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha haha haa, I press the stop button in my browser and edit conflicted my-self. —Croisés Majestic ^{(sur nous mars)} 01:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I can't really think of a reason a non-bureaucrat would need move-subpages. The move-subpages flag is mainly used in user renames and renaming Templates or WikiProjects. There isn't really a backlog in this area either, as normal users can still move sub-pages one by one. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

  It would be to save lots of time. Did you see my move log? There is a reason that screams out loud! ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Support either proposal. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose all We do not need more new userflags. Either we add userrights to existing flags, or we leave them to the admins like it is currently. Otherwise, we create more fodder for the rights-hungry annoyances that haven't be blocked yet. This is a particularly trivial userright (suppressredirect) that should either go to all, say, rollbackers (as I think I proposed last year), or stay with the sysops. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Question Are these rights, or any others, ones that appropriate admins could just give on a case-by-case basis? If it's just a matter of a few people working on particular tasks that would be facilitated by these kinds of rights, maybe an admin or some other appropriate person could simply bestow them. this may require some sort of software change, though-- I don't know how rights and abilities are handled software-side, so I don't know if it's possible to make someone and editor with extra powers. Wabbott9 (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't give out suppressredirect or anything like that unless we create a new flag for it, which is essentially what this proposal is for. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand. Oh, well. worth asking, to see if this sort of thing could be done less formally, but it looks like it would be just about the same. Wabbott9 (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support While I don't agree with the limits, file-redirect cleanup is really annoying, this would speed things up. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:06pm • 05:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Noticeboard is currently undergoing a 1-month trial after which its continued use will be the subject of discussion, any further discussion should go to the noticeboard's talk page. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:09pm • 05:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have moved this over from the Idea lab to garner some consensus on giving this trial an idea. Part of this comes out of from comments and suggestions on the RFC on dispute resolution.

It seems to me that disputes on Wikipedia are all over the place, as in, they are not where they should be. We have people filing mediation cases for conduct issues, and vice versa. Some users don't seem to realise the best forum for getting their dispute resolved. Others just prefer to go to ANI directly. As a result disputes often get disjointed, and it becomes quite hard for mediators / "helpers" to keep track of, as well as ANI getting clogged up with disputes that sometimes either just don't belong there, or would be better suited at a proper dispute resolution forum. Perhaps, to try and counter this, we could create a new noticeboard, say Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where we would have users being able to post their enquiry there and get some dispute resolution there on the spot by a mediator, or in disputes where it is evident the matter is detailed or one that does not have a simple resolution, could be referred to a proper forum, say an RFC, RFC/U or mediation. This noticeboard would exclude matters that should automatically go to arbitration, and standard stuff that should be at ANI, like block appeals etc. All other threads that are clearly dispute related that are posted at ANI could be closed, and sent to the disputes noticeboard instead. Additionally we could post a link on all present DR pages with a link to the noticeboard if the user is not 100% certain if that is the correct forum.

While I do see the potential for this noticeboard to get clogged up if not managed properly managed, I think that if correctly managed this idea could help reduce ANI getting clogged up with disputes that just don't belong there, and streamline the dispute resolution process in that we could point disputes in the right direction as opposed to being posted in 10 different places before finding the correct one. It could also help resolve low-level disputes, and nip them in the bud, so to speak.

To keep discussions on the page focused, we could have a similar format to SPI (with mediators or "clerks" to make sure discussions don't get out out of hand, stay civilized) but with users not having to post with funky templates. A simple comment about what the dispute is, who is involved, what has been happening, and then we can point them in the right direction, or get some basic DR underway. While I realise this is a new idea, I don't see any harm in giving it a trial go. ANI is far too clogged up nowadays with disputes that don't belong there, and disputes are often all over the place. Some forums for DR nowadays (WQA being a good example) work poorly and I think giving this idea a go might work. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but at least we will have given it a go. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a bloody good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. —[d'oh] 00:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Support + improve WP:DR. A noticeboard is a good idea, but important to make sure it helps and doesn't just try to absorb every other issue. Specialist noticeboards and talk pages have their place too. In some cases it may need to point users to other venues. I made a start on restructuring WP:Dispute resolution a while ago to give much-needed better guidance, which might help too. (Link to draft - feedback welcome). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The noticeboard is more designed to be a starting point for disputes to go to, as opposed to a replacement for the noticeboards that already exist. That said, some disputes are trivial and a quick discussion or some advice is all that's needed, which would prevent clogging up a noticeboard like ANI, and would also aid in resolving the dispute, as DRN would be watched by those that actually resolve disputes (or learning to) as opposed to ANI. It's a specialised noticeboard for a specialised problem. There are other times where new users just aren't aware of basic policies and need these explained, ie, they file a medcab case because a user keeps removing their unsourced info from an article. The main aims of this noticeboard are to a) Help keep track of disputes b) Act as a starting point for most disputes in the resolution process, ensuring they actually get directed to the best forum where they can be addressed properly and c) Aid in resolution of small disputes and trivial matters such as examples I listed above. It's designed to be a central point for the DR process, not a replacement for the existing processes. WQA has some severe issues, as most matters that get sent there end up with parties slinging mud at each other. Perhaps WQA could be marked historical with disputes starting at DRN and either finding quick resolution or referred to RFC/U. This way we can also keep discussions civilised and properly address disputes that have genuine issues, but nip in the bud "this user reverted my edit/I don't like them" type disputes that we too often see at WQA. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. This makes sense. DR is policy and next to RS, NPOV, and BLP is the most common and most disruptive part of Wikipedia. (While we're at it we should get rid of Content noticeboard and maybe merge this eventually with Wikiquette Noticeboard, which is a giant waste of finger-pointing time). The board would work to help navigate all aspects of disagreements and complex issues. It could be staffed by mediators and focus on compromise and building consensus. It would be an ideal complement to multi-factoral debates which don't fit neatly at any one board, but without necessitating an RfC. A good idea. User:Ocaasi ^c 03:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Question. Does this proposal differ substantially from formal mediation? Maybe it just makes mediation more prominent as a dispute-resolution opportunity? —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This noticeboard is not designed to replace any of the major dispute resolution processes (except perhaps WQA) but to complement the existing processes, clarify the disputes, resolve little ones that referring to a different process would be a waste of time or unnecessary, and point users in the right direction as to where the best place to sort out the dispute is, as currently, and often, disputes get sent to the wrong place. This noticeboard would aim to fix that. A noticeboard monitored by those who have experience in DR, getting little disputes resolved quickly, and referring others to the correct forum for resolution. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Proposal is very reasonable. AGK [•] 10:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue IMO. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:03pm • 12:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support sounds reasonable.Theo10011 (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support so long as scope is clear, and matters are speedily sent to the appropriate venue if necessary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have submitted a rough draft of the noticeboard. It is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I still haven't finished off the edit notice yet. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Although the existing noticeboards suffer from understaffing, I would still support this if traffic could be redirected from ANI. That will take merciless clerking, however, so I hope volunteers will be willing to step up to the plate. Skomorokh 15:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there/could there be a technical way to move a thread to a different venue with only a click? (I'm thinking user-enabled, to help volunteers.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any current thread-moving tool, but it would be both feasible (going on the way Twinkle expedites multiple edits to different pages in the deletion process with a single click) and to me welcome, if you can find someone to code and maintain it. Skomorokh 16:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Skomorokh) - I'm hoping that with this noticeboard admins will direct stuff that doesn't belong at ANI but does belong at the dispute noticeboard, to this noticeboard. It will be partly up to clerks to monitor ANI, partly up to admins to move threads there. There has to be a way in script to move pages from one page to another. I'll have a look into it. I know there's a script that does voting on AFD, I'll see if I can modify it to have it move sections. Or there might be a way a bot can move sections that are tagged with a certain template, say, {{move to DRN}}, to the disputes noticeboard. Will try to get some input on this. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Seems reasonable and worth a try. I'd love to have comments segregated into Involved and Uninvolved sections and have the clerk be able to enforce this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Question Looking at the present state of WP:ANI, what proportion of the threads there would you envisage ought to start at the dispute resolution noticeboard in future? Most of the discussions revolve around inter-editor disputes – would this noticeboard swallow most of ANI? Skomorokh 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If that meant that ANI did a better job of handling admin issues, which in my experience it handles very poorly, that would be a bonus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Skomorokh, stuff that is still within the scope of ANI would stay at ANI. Stuff like sockpuppetry, block evasion, edit warring etc, stays at ANI. Other stuff is to the discretion of admins and clerks as to whether to move it over to DRN. It's not going to be 100% clear right off the bat. Our aim should be to encourage users with content and conduct disputes that does not fit within ANI's scope (stuff that would normally go to WQA, RFC, third opinion) to DRN to assist in the clarifying what the actual dispute is to make it easier to resolve, what the best forum for resolution is, or in limited circumstances providing resolution on the spot. Stuff is still going to get posted to ANI that probably belongs at DRN. It will take time to get familiar with what should be moved to DRN and what shouldn't, but like I said it's worth a go. We can learn as we go along. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. At least it's worth a try. Two suggestions: make it clear that other DR venues should not require attempting to resolve the issue here first (since it may only be a place where you get told where to go next), and make sure the format of the page does not lend itself unduly to just posting someone's name in a flaming manner (like using it to post the names of users one doesn't like; in other words, there should be some indication of a dispute, not just a name or list of names). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • In regards to your first point, no, if a dispute clearly belongs at mediation, a user does not have to go to DRN first. Other issues, sure. If the user feels that the DR avenue they have selected is best, they can use it. This comes with two caveats. One, if a user files a dispute on a page, and it does not belong there, they can be directed to DRN to find the best forum, and two, what the dispute about is should be clear. If, on the page they posted the dispute, it is not clear what the dispute is, they could also be directed to DRN. The main aims of this noticeboard are to a) Have the topic of disputes clearly clarified, to aid in resolution and b) Ensure that disputes are sent to the right forum. So, while using DRN will not be required before other DR forums, but it is recommended, especially if it is not clear who/what is in dispute, or where it should go to, in the case of mixed content-conduct issues.
  • In regards to your second point, with having clerks patrol the page, unlike WQA at present, the aim is to not have this sort of behaviour allowed. No longer will these sort of noticeboards be a place to flame users, rather, it will be the first location to bring up new disputes in regards to legitimate conduct issues, discussed in a civilised manner, as well as content issues, also in a civilised manner. Clerks will not be civility police, but bad conduct will not be tolerated. We've dealt too long with flaming at places like WQA and ANI, and it does not help resolve the issues. Time to make a change for the better. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree. Those are good answers, very well thought out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Very cautious support The idea is pretty good, but it's also delicate. We have to balance helping new users with not creating a new layer of bureaucracy or adding an additional venue to forum-shop at. Also, clerking/mediating is reasonable, but good mediators are not every user, and making it excessively formal like ArbCom only makes dispute resolution take longer. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The noticeboard's main aims are to move disputes away from ANI where they don't belong, and disputes where the situation or scope is not clear, to this noticeboard, for clarification and direction to the best place for resolution. Forum shopping, not allowed, which would be enforced. I agree that bureaucracy is bad, and that allowing everyone to clerk would not be the best idea. Perhaps the user could demonstrate some experience with dispute resolution in order to clerk? We don't want to make the process to bureaucratic, but at the same time need to ensure the people directing users to other DR forums actually know what they are doing. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support and highly encourage editors who make posts at the more specialized boards (NN, AN*, 3RR, BLPN, etc.) that are less experienced to come here first. Obviously if an established editor creates a thread at those other locations, they know what they are doing and don't need to come here to get their post at the other location. I can think of 30 or so threads in the past few weeks on ANI that should have been resolved elsewhere. Hasteur (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure, experienced users don't have to post here first if they know exactly which forum to take the dispute to. This noticeboard is not designed to be an extra hoop people have to jump to, it is more designed as a mail sorter. Clarify what the dispute is and what needs to be resolved, and direct them to the best forum for resolution. With the two caveats I listed above. If a user files a dispute at a DR forum and it's the wrong place, they can be directed to discuss the dispute at DRN, two the dispute needs to be clarified in a way that is clear for helpers to aid in resolution. Otherwise it might have to be sent here. If an RFC/U is posted with the user stating "User Y keeps reverting my edits, I don't like it" etc, then sure, that needs to go to DRN. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia:DISPUTE#Ask_for_help_at_a_relevant_noticeboard should be updated accordingly, the last line of Wikipedia:DISPUTE#For_urgent_situations, should also be emboldened in some way with a link to the new noticeboard. The Helpful One 00:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The relevant DR pages will need to be updated if consensus for this idea goes ahead, but I want to wait until that first. We might need to also analyse where users who have the disputes find the forums they go to, and see if there's a way to direct them to the new noticeboard if they're unsure of the best forum. See my above comments. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....}
• Support — but jokingly oppose as it'll reduce the overall drama level at WP:ANI and therefore hurt sales at my Torch and Pitchfork Emporium. --slakr^\ talk / 00:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Not dealing with this much, I don't have much of an opinion. I'd just like to point out that this is the second SUPPORTed noticeboard on this page right now, and we have a good-many noticeboards out there already. I just hope that the maintainers will do their best to advertise this board, and will have the guts to shoot it if the time comes. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This is an awesome idea. There are numerous times when I find a content dispute that has been brought to a noticeboard (especially ANI) and I've directed people to WP:DR. Being able to direct someone to an actual board would be much better than just a policy page (especially since they've already reached out to one noticeboard, they'd be more inclined to try another). I might even try my hand at helping support such a board. -- Atama頭 16:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support proposal is reasonable and well-formulated. Would be useful and helpful to new & experienced WP users alike.--JayJasper (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - useful board.Anthem 19:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A reasonable proposal that could help things, and seems unlikely to harm anything; worth trying, at least. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Summarised proposal

It seems to me like there is a fair bit of consensus to giving this idea a go and seeing how it will work. So we are entirely clear on the functions of this noticeboard, I have compiled a summary of what the noticeboard would do, and what noticeboards it would replace, and a summary of how it would function. Comments on the summary are welcome.

1. This noticeboard would primarily be used for users to post a brief summary of the dispute/issue, and can either get some on the spot resolution by a "clerk" (I use that term sparingly) or mediator in situations where it is either a small dispute, a trivial one, or one that resolving on the spot as opposed to referring to a proper forum would be a waste of time (see examples above). In disputes where it is evident the matter is detailed or one that does not have a simple resolution, could be referred to a proper forum, say an RFC, RFC/U or mediation. This noticeboard is not designed to replace all other DR noticeboards, except to absorb, as a trial, the sorts of comments that would go to WQA and Content noticeboard. This noticeboard would not be mandatory to use, as in, it would not be a "hoop" people have to go through to pursue other dispute resolution. This would come with two caveats. One, if a user files a dispute on a page, and it does not belong there, they can be directed to DRN to find the best forum, and two, what the dispute about is should be clear. If, on the page they posted the dispute, it is not clear what the dispute is, they could also be directed to DRN. The reasons for this are to a) Have the topic of disputes clearly clarified, to aid in resolution and b) Ensure that disputes are sent to the right forum to ensure resolution is actually possible.
2. Update - A trial would be undertaken to implement the noticeboard in two stages. In stage one, discussions on WQA and the content noticeboards would still occur on those noticeboards, but a notice would be posted on the pages to suggest DRN as an alternate forum. This could be used to parallel the good and bad aspects of the new noticeboard, and compare with the good and bad aspects of existing noticeboards. This trial would last a month, and at the end of the month a discussion would take place outlining the results of the first trial. Stage two would involve the WQA and Content noticeboards closed, with posts directed to the Dispute resolution noticeboard. This aspect of the trial would also last a month, and the main purpose of this trial is to assess what would things be like if these boards were permanently closed. I've proposed this idea as a) Content noticeboard deals with largely the same issues and b) WQA at the moment has some severe issues, as most matters that get sent there end up with parties slinging mud at each other. While I realise that this is quite a major change, I feel that giving this idea a shot is worth a go. The new noticeboard would have little effect if users could go to WQA and still have shouting matches. Conduct disputes at DRN would aim to be civilized, with while this not being "policed", will be enforced. There is a difference between expressing one's opinion and calling someone an asshat. Resolution at DRN for these sorts of disputes would either find quick resolution, or being referred to RFC/U. This way we can also keep discussions civilised and properly address conduct that has genuine issues, but nip in the bud "this user reverted my edit/I don't like them" type disputes that we too often see at WQA. While WQA is a high traffic noticeboard, it also is deeply flawed, and something needs to be done to still address valid conduct issues, but prevent the cesspit that WQA has become, and I propose this noticeboard, which would be monitored by mediators and "clerks" (I hate that word) who have demonstrated some experience in DR to ensure discussions don't get out of hand, offer advice and point people in the right direction in terms of the best avenue for further dispute resolution. At the end of this trial, results would be compared to what we found in the first trial, and a discussion would take place outlining the results of both trials and the best course of action moving forward.
3. Disputes that do not belong at ANI would be closed, and redirected to DRN. While severe and urgent conduct issues do belong at ANI, like as I posted above, a lot that ends up at ANI does not belong there. While it may take some time to get a hang of what belongs at ANI in terms of disputes and what does not, a main aim of the board to reduce clogging up ANI with disputes that do not belong there. Additionally, disputes posted at incorrect forums (for example only conduct issues being presented at a mediation case) could be sent to DRN for clarification as to what the dispute is, and how to resolve it.
4. Traffic at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests that involves content and conduct disputes would also be directed to DRN. While a lower traffic noticeboard, this noticeboard is not really designed for dispute resolution, more so for assistance and questions about editing.

There are further details on the proposal further up the page, feel free to review that as well, as it has a bit more information as to the details of this proposal. The dispute resolution noticeboard is most designed to act as a mail sorter, resolve small issues on the spot, direct larger and more complex issues to the most appropriate forum for resolution, and ensure that discussions stay civilised and reasonable. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 13:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I will be implementing these changes, starting with a notice on Content noticeboard and WQA for the new noticeboard, as well as to ANI for dispute discussions to be sent to DRN. Will also update some DR pages to reflect this new option. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support - what an excellent idea. Without getting to arbcom-formal, perhaps a simple structural thing like "Your complain needs to be 300 words or less, and must include diffs of alleged behaviour" or something (with help given to people, I guess; maybe 'should include'), would help things get more expeditiously disposed of. Either way, I think this is a great idea--and anythingt hat lances the boil that is WQA would be great. Admin involvement needed, of course; one of WQA's failings is that there's no teeth, just people yelling. → ROUX ₪ 08:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's a really good idea. I think being a little more lax on content disputes would be OK. The main issues with content disputes at present are either the scope and details of the content dispute being unclear, or the dispute being posted at the wrong forum, so this noticeboard aims to help resolve small issues but point larger ones to the proper forum for resolution. That said, discussions on the page should be short, regardless of content or conduct issues. Perhaps a word limit could work, especially for conduct disputes. In regards to "teeth", I do see the need for some enforcement of reasonable discussion, as opposed to the yelling and bickering that goes on at WQA. Perhaps the mediators/"clerks" that patrol the page can do what they need to do to keep discussions civilised, failing that notify users they need to keep things civil etc, and failing that close the discussion and refer that matter to an RFC/U or ANI? I'm really not sure on this part. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - As before. -- Atama頭 10:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I had come her thinking, "not another bloody noticeboard", but saw the note about interim folding in two noticeboards whose briefs overlap and am cheered up immensely. I approached this problem from a different way and this is much better. Is it too late to add Wikipedia:Third opinion to be marked (for the interim) historical? It is a fairly low traffic broad with a somewhat nebulous brief, whose roles I feel overlap with WQA and also RfC in some way? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Added to the list, I had been thinking about adding it and it is quite low traffic. Also added a clause about redirecting conduct and content disputes from Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests to here, as while somewhat a low traffic noticeboard, the issue we have here is disputes spread out everywhere. While I agree consolidating everything together is a bad idea, the main purpose of this board is to fix small issues, direct others to the best forum for resolution. If managed well, I can't see this board turning into another ANI. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support this seems like a good step forward for dispute resolution, hopefully it'll take some of the drama away from ANI. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overall, I like this for the reasons I already stated above. I'm ambivalent, however, about going so far as trial-ing those other boards as historical. So long as the trial is clearly spelled out, in advance, as being brief, with a pre-defined end date, and leaves open the possibility of promptly re-opening the other boards, then I can Support, but I'd be very wary without that caveat. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The noticeboards will have an initial trial of closure for say, two months, sufficient time to sort out any teething problems with the transition (One month might be insufficient) and yes, if the noticeboard turns out to be a total failure then we could re-open the old noticeboards. That's why there will be a trial, it's something that has never been done before so we need to see how it goes. I feel that if managed well this noticeboard could work quite well, but we have to give it a go and see first. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Reading the discussion since my last comment, I now have to Oppose closing the other boards during the trial. Certainly, two months is way too long. I still support the overall idea of the trial, but not that aspect of it. I've thought carefully about the argument that we need to prevent users from forum-shopping from one place to another, but that is not a valid reason to close the existing boards. In fact, if one really wants to test the hypothesis that this new board will be an improvement—and testing that hypothesis is exactly what the trial should aspire to accomplish—then the best way to do that is to leave all existing boards open. That way, we can actually collect data on whether the new board does or does not accomplish what it proposes with respect to cutting down on subsequent forum-shopping, as well as data about whether cases that originate at the new board get resolved more efficiently than do cases that start out somewhere else. Closing the other boards skews the trial to give an advantage to the proposal, and we shouldn't do that. Depending on the outcome of the trial, there could subsequently be a separate RfC about closing other venues. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC
      • We could perhaps do a trial of all noticeboards that exist at present just encourage traffic to be posted at DRN, and offer it as an alternative to the existing noticeboards, and see how it goes. After this trial we could assess the results, then do a second trial with the noticeboards closed and discussions directed to DRN. This way we can gether data on the successes of the noticeboard without skweing results. I've updated the proposal accorcingly. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that update is a significant improvement. With the understanding that "phase two" of the trial will, of course, depend upon the results of "phase one", I am now comfortable Supporting the proposal in full. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Why is this here instead of the already open RFC? I've already commented there and don't care enough to reiterate myself.

• There's a fallacy here that the dispute issues WP has are due to lack of organization or can be fixed due to reorganization. Remember in the midst of WP-this and WP-that, there are but five pillars Read through this mess if you think organization, or admins instead of (mere) editors facilitating resolution is the issue.
• The issue, vis-a-vis civility is lack of consensus. Without consensus, you can rearrange deck chairs all you want and it doesn't matter.
• Clerk and procedures and all that are contrary to one of the pillars. The "cure" could easily be worse the problem.
• Disputes occur because when a POV pushing editor uses suspect RS engages and edit wars, sometimes on BLP, with other editor(s) that they're insulting ... which dispute board does that go to? Gerardw (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Gerard. Thank you for your comments here. To respond to each of your points
    1. I realise that there is an already open RFC, and I left comments there as well. This proposal came out of an idea I got from reviewing the RFC, mainly, a lot of disputes end up at ANI, or a miscellany of other boards that they don't belong at, and as a result it is somewhat harder to a) Keep track of issues and b) Ensure they're actually posted at the right forum. There are the five pillars, but most people that have a dispute won't go and read the five pillars, or at times even read WP:DR. Most just go to ANI for content, WQA for conduct. Both forums turn into a shouting match. While I realise this would be a major change, I feel the major consensus at present is that there is an issue, and it needs to be addressed. This is my proposed resolution.
    2. Consensus will generally form from undertaking dispute resolution. Or it will not. Dispute resolution has to be tried first. But a major barrier to actually resolving disputes at times is incivility. It's quite hard to resolve the issues at hand if people are calling each other asshats. It works at MedCom, I feel it could work on this noticeboard.
    3. I'm not a big fan of the clerks idea either. That said, ArbCom has clerks, who also enforce good conduct on discussion pages, and it seems to largely work. I'm not suggesting that "clerks" of this noticeboard will hold any official role, their task would only be to ensure discussions stay reasonable and focused on the issues at hand, and help direct complex queries to a targeted DR forum, ie an RFC, RFC/U or mediation.
    4. That sort of issue would be posted to the noticeboard, a brief summary of the issues would be posted. It seems like that example you present is mainly a conduct issue, so an RFC/U would be the best avenue, and if edit warring was active, referred to 3RR. Once the conduct issues are resolved, the sources could be discussed on the article talk page. This noticeboard is not designed to resolve all disputes. It's designed to help discuss them to figure out exactly what is going on, resolve minor ones and recommend the best avenue to resolve larger, more complex ones. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Conditional support: i) not replacing any existing boards to begin with; if it works well enough that other boards become defunct, great, but don't force it. ii) minimal formality. No "clerks" or requirements of diffs, etc. The main objective should be to help newcomers figure out how to handle a dispute (probably boilerplate responses will evolve as the WP:helpdesk has) and point them in the right direction. It's fine if it evolves a little more formality in response to need, but starting with that is a bad idea. Keep It Simple. Rd232 ^talk 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Part of the issue with not moving traffic from other noticeboards is that if a user is not satisfied with a response at one noticeboard, they can simply go back to the other noticeboards and post the same issues all over again. I'm not suggesting that suggestions on DRN should be final, but a user shouldn't be allowed to bring up a trivial conduct dispute matter, be told it's not an issue, and have them raise it again on WQA. My points stand in regards to the idea of clerks. They're designed to assist and keep discussions focused. In content disputes, sure, diffs maybe not required. For conduct, important to have diffs. Otherwise people could post anything they like on the noticeboard without substantiating evidence. The new board is designed to reduce these sorts of reports, as I've listed above, as opposed to increasing them. Helping out new users is important, but this needs to be balanced with the potential for the board to be used by anyone that has a beef with another editor. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comment, Whilst the DRN is, at worst, a harmless idea and a best a brilliant one, closing WP:3O, even for a trial, is completely uncalled for and unneccessary. I don't believe there is, or has ever been, any consensus to scrap or even to substantially change it - 3O works, it's a great way of getting a dial-out consensus to a low visibility topic area and finding solutions to problems which couldn't really be aired without a fully fledged RFC. Volunteers there tend to be well informed and genuinely helpful (myself excluded of course) and the project operates with a remarkable level of efficiency (admittedly in part due to the low traffic). It would be a crying shame to shut it down for an unspecified trial period - if anything we should take this as an oppurtunity to redirect more traffic to 3O (or at least inform them of the discussion). I'm happy to support if we strike that off the proposal. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, might try that avenue. Moved back to original idea without removing 3O. While 3O might be low traffic, I do realise now that it is an area that helps, so sure, happy to remove it from the proposal. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do like the proposal - I'm sure we've all been in situations where we've had a dispute and just thought "where the heck do I post this?" and a board where you can just post any problem and have it sorted to the right noticeboard seems like a great idea. A possible problem may be keeping disputant from following the poster straight over to DRN and creating a shouting match before anyone can shift it - we can see if that materialises. One issue I'd be interested in seeing in the trial is the impact of having designated clerks deal with the 'cases' compared to just letting anybody do it. There are pros and cons for each but it's perhaps something that can be investigated. I am now happy to support the proposal. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be formal, but users would need to demonstrate at least some knowledge or experience in the DR process in order to direct users to the proper forum. While this adds a layer of bureaucracy, it would also help ensure brand new users don't direct equally new users to mediation for a conduct dispute. I don't see major harm in letting anyone give advice and help, but actually closing a discussion (unless plainly unhelpful) and moving the dispute to different forum, would best be done by someone who is familiar with DR processes. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support. A great idea, as I've mentioned before, centralized and staffed by mediators and policy generalists. No need to ditch 3O, but WQA and content noticeboard have seen their days come and go. Worth clarifying that DRN is not the place to blame everybody, but to lay out issues and see where discussion should focus. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Seems reasonable and worth a try. I still think that comments should be segregated into Involved and Uninvolved sections and have the clerk be able to enforce this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The mess WQA sometimes becomes has been accurately described and such a noticeboard would hopefully be better "staffed" and provide results instead of fueling further uncivil dispute. Guoguo12 (Talk)  19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support as above. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:19pm • 06:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support A board specifically designated for drama? Yes please. Swarm ^X 21:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose We emphatically do not need more noticeboards. We emphatically do need more experienced editors staffing the noticeboards we have. Go to any one of our existing noticeboards and note the number of unanswered or perfunctorily answered requests. Note how the requests are formatted– often by new editors who are still figuring out how to edit, period, and certainly aren't going to read through the arcana of WP:Diff. If we need anything, it's a good way to move dispute threads around noticeboards, perhaps using a bot and a template that functions like Anomiebot on WP:PUF. But I don't see how more efficient shuttling is going to help with unanswered and unresolved disputes and queries. (Although if an editor is told enough times "This isn't the correct board for that. Post there instead." they may give up... which I suppose does solve part of the problem.) --Danger (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  To reply to your comments here, I realise that having "just another noticeboard" isn't going to help much. This board would after trials absorb some existing noticeboards, namely WQA, content noticeboard, as well as having content/conduct disputes from editor assistance and inappropriate content/conduct disputes from AN and ANI closed and directed to this new board. Some boards at present just don't work well, main example being WQA which often turns into a brawling pit. This new board is not just designed to point users to other forums, as if that was the only purpose of the board we could just use WP:DR instead. It's also designed to help resolve content and conduct disputes, but disputes that fall outside of the scope of the board (large or complex disputes) could be directed to an alternative forum. I realise that this idea is not fully fine tuned, but it will take some time to get the noticeboard working properly, and to feel out as to what can be solved on the spot, what can't, but if the idea is shot down before it's even attempted, we will never know if a change could be for the better. All I'm suggesting is we see how things go. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 12:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Support. While (of course) not making every conflict go away, I really think this will help.TCO (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, per Danger. Noticeboard creep is an issue. Stuff at WP:BLPN does get ignored and that is suppose to be highly sensative stuff. So maybe review what is going on with noticeboards before going further with them. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link to Facebook

I've noticed that an increasing number of sites have facebook twitter icons which when clicked on put on link on you relevant profile or create a tweet. Would is be useful for every WikiPedia page to have such a button? As an example have a look at Liverpool Echo when a user writes a comment the sytem can be set up to past that comment to Facebook and create a tweet with a link back to the article. Seems good PR as well as usefull.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought about the same thing as well. Also, maybe let users log in using their Facebook account. Wikipedia has a shortage of female editors and women rule social networking so might be a great way to attract some new editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been suggested quite frequently recently, see e.g. this or this discussion and the links there. As a logged-in user, you can install User:TheDJ/Sharebox for yourself, but it appears that many users would find such icon blocks too intrusive to to be turned on by default. For Signpost stories, we added unobtrusive "Share this" dropdown menus a while ago (example - see top right).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would the purpose of echoing your edits onto Twitter and Facebook be, other than for canvassing purposes? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You would not be echoing your edits, just articles you chose though might interest you friends.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sharebox is a script that reorders your toolbox. It adds new buttons that make it easier to mail, print or share an article on Facebook or another linksharing service. You must have an account to add Sharebox to the sidebar. See User:TheDJ/Sharebox for more information. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:TheDJ/Sharebox sounds great but I cannot get it to work?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What browser are you using? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook integration already exists in MediaWiki, and is used on Wikia. Someone brought it up on Jimbo's talk page recently and he supports Facebook for Wikipedia. Just pointing it out. I don't think we should be a social site, I hate social sites, but linking to social sites will increase readership and editing. People wonder why we aren't getting new editors, maybe it's that Web 2.0 is old-school for most people now, and Wikipedia is hovering around Web .7 ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What sort of editing Wikipedia will get from integrating Facebook needs to be considered before any action is taken. My guess is that since Facebook is for socialization and similar activities, and not for "scholarly" activities such as writing an encyclopedia, the majority of edits will be of no benefit at best. The worst case (and likely) scenario is that such links will attract Facebook trolls, fans, and POV pushers to Wikipedia. That's something the editors dealing with vandalism don't need. Rilak (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Er... and using Wikipedia in schools... we'll get school-children editing their schools pages ... and abusing their friends and teachers... Oh no! It already happened! … It's not like Wikipedeans now are such a "neutral" bunch (see ANI, ARBCOm, block log, AIV etc), and it's not like there aren't many many links form FB to WP already. While I have great qualms about putting Fb and Twitter links on WP (and got soundly trouted for putting Google links on pages needing refs myself, although consensus later moved) I don't think that thinking of FBers as "the great unwashed" is either helpful, accurate or true to the spirit of the project. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

Except that school kids are currently studying research techniques and materials relevant to different articles, so there's a potential gain (for us and them). The abuse is a problem for allowing anyone to edit (not suggesting we get rid of that), so there's not really a net loss there. FB does not teach anyone how to research stuff (as many pyramid schemes and trojans I have to point out to my friends, quite the opposite), so there is no potential gain. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that Facebook mirrors Wikipedia. Rich Farmbrough, 19:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC).

As you say Facebook feeds Wikipedia as in Rose Heilbron what I and the people I'm connected with seems to do on face book is post links to articles, videos etc, lots of external content.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as I opposed it the last two times. Also, Facebook is the antithesis of credibility, and in my opinion, the antithesis of intelligent discourse. Having the icons there would be damaging, I think, and the only reason I can think of people wanting it is that it saves them about a seventh of a second and that 'everyone else is doing it'. Seriously, if you want to link to a Wikipedia article, copy the URL, it's not at all hard. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Something like this might look nice. Killiondude (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that most people use their real names on Facebook, I sincerely doubt that this would increase vandalism. If anything, using your real name is more likely to discourage it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Only if they used their real names when editing on Wikipedia. But since Facebook and Wikipedia aren't linked, we'd only identify them with their IP address. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the suggestions is to let users log in using their Facebook accounts. A lot of web sites are starting to do that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How exactly would that work? I mean, in YouTube for example, I can log in with my Google-Mail account. In that case, both accounts are probably hosted on the same service (ie a Google server) (that's just my guess, it might be wrong). How exactly would that work in the case of Wikipedia and Facebook? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

How that would work essentially is that you log in to Facebook, they tell Wikipedia that you are logged in to your account and your name is "John Smith"; of course, they'd provide a unique ID so that you don't conflict with other "John Smith"s. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Undecided This might be a good for attracting new editors. However, I would like to see a better developed and more detailed proposal before deciding. I think this could also have a lot of negative issues. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Opposed to any sort of non-optional, formal integration of the 'Like this!' box variety, for the following reasons (which I've kept quite abstract for the time being):

a) Credibility - connecting to facebook etc. in any overt way detracts credbility from us, especially in academic or professional circles - per Sven

b) Editor ingress - as has been observed, FB already mirrors wikipedia and links to our articles. That means that people are already able to jump from FB to our site, introducing a feature which allowed them to jump back doesnt seem paticularly beneficial in terms of keeping editors.

c) Expert retention - If I'm an expert on an obscure subject and create an article on something which is likely not of much interest to non-experts and come back a month later to see that it still has "0 likes" whilst another article on Will Mellor has thousands of likes, I probably won't bother making another.

d) Commercial reasons don't apply - Most sites, such as newspapers, blogs etc. have commercial motivations behind the FB links and 'tweet this' buttons - they want to draw in more views to earn more money - these reasons don't really apply to us.

e) Lack of techical knowledge needed - Come on, anybody who can edit wikipedia can also copy and paste a URL anyway, we don't need to build a toolbar into the interface to help them do that.

f) Independance - personally, I quite like the idea of having a major site which isn't linked into the 'evil empire' of the day.

They're my (possibly half-baked) thoughts anyway - I may try to expand if this becomes a serious proposal rather than a brainstorm. (Note that I'm completely unopposed to allowing people to choose to include something like this in an alternate skin/JS function/whatever). Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Bob House. Also, in the manner of what I'm refering to: day b nuf spelin n shit 4 work weddout folk @fb writ dis we dot needat Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Nasa's web site[2] integrates with Facebook, Twitter, Digg and many other social networking sites. Can someone show me some evidence that this has caused NASA to lose credibility in academic or professional circles? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob: I don't think anyone's proposing that we add "Like this" buttons to Wikipedia. Instead, I see two proposals: 1) Let readers share articles they find interesting by sharing them on Facebook, Twitter, etc. 2) Let people log in using their Facebook accounts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Nasa, that's a completely different situation. Nasa doesn't have to fight for credibility like we do (they have it and would have to work to lose it, we're gaining it and have to work to not lose what ground we're acquiring), nor do they allow anyone to edit their site. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how letting readers share articles they find interesting with their friends will cause Wikipedia to lose credibility? I don't get it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - First, it is disheartening to see the elitist attitude of some of the comments here. It is unfair to assume that we are smarter than others, simply because they involve their friends in their lives, and we anonymously bicker about hyphen usage. Like I said above, I do hate social sites, but that doesn't mean I hate their users. I wanted to point out http://help.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Facebook_Connect as an example of how a MediaWiki site uses the Facebook API. Also, if anything were to happen with "like" buttons, or social bookmarking links, this could be handled through an integrated gadget, so only logged-in users who choose to have to see it. This should help us keep our "street cred". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• I have to say I'm not a fan. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose How to manage it? Also, people would not go here just because they can use it because of a sn (social networking) account. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't want Facebook tracking people on Wikipedia, so we need to keep it separate. However I am not opposed to linking to official or fan facebook pages in external links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose linking Wikipedia to Facebook for the following reason. Although there are probably many people (myself included) who like both Wikipedia and Facebook, and have both a userpage on Wikipedia and a profile on Facebook, we should remember that if one goes to WP: What Wikipedia is not and reads what is under Sub-heading 2.5, we have the clarification that Wikipedia is NOT a social networking website. We should not really confuse social networking websites with an online encyclopaedia - Facebook and Wikipedia both have their uses, but for different reasons. As or the suggestion above that this would be unlikely to attract vandals because people use their real names on Wikipedia, please remember that people use their real names on Citizendium but that this online encyclopaedia is still vastly inferior to Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• oppose Along with many other reasons listed above (and perhaps this is too) I would be worried that some of the ... ummm ... problems (Virus, phishing, scams, etc) could end up compromising something here. And accounts/names/passwords being compromised at WP almost always leads to some very undesirable results. Second, I'd wonder if it would increase the amount of "WP:OUTING" that happens, as many users here edit under pseudonyms. I might like having a "like" button at times, but it's really not that hard to just copy and paste a link either. — Ched :  ?  02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Social Media

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that all Wikipedia articles and photos need a social media share functionality, probably just FB and Twitter, but maybe a "Share This" dropdown if we have to be fair. Thanks for reading and cheers. ~J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 19:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. Seems like an easier way to attract vandalism. If people truly want to read something, they will search for it and Wikipedia is normally a top search result. The visits should be organic. Encyclopedic information is generally not something that you share in a social manner. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat on the fence with this one myself. I admit that allowing this type of functionality might draw some attention to the articles I also believe that there would be some significant drawbacks, vandalism being one of them. I do think that it might be interesting to do a test of some to see (maybe pick a couple hundred). I think we need to ask ourselves though what the return on the investment is. What would be gained and lost by doing this and is it worth the investment of time and energy? The foundation has been beating the bushes looking for ways to attract more editors and this could be a way to do that. --Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Since most people use their real names on Facebook, I doubt very many would be vandalizing articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If "most" people use their real names, does this not mean that there are no mechanisms to ensure that people use their real names? Rilak (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Using real names on Facebook and vandalizing articles here are two different things. You can discover a Wikipedia article through a friend on Facebook, then visit the article, then vandalize it. We would never know the user's Facebook name. On a somewhat related note, for about a year now, Facebook has been using Wikipedia's data to create information pages on every single subject. So for instance, in a person's profile if they listed "Cooking" as an interest, and you clicked on Cooking, you'd go to something like facebook.com/topics/cooking which would show the Wikipedia article for Cooking. I don't know how we could use that to draw editors here, but it's a thought. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with the original poster. That's why I made Wikipedia:Sharebox in the first place. But to implement it everywhere, we need an open and free sharing system that supports multiple social share tools. We can't promote just one or two services, and above that, social sharing services are still very dependent on your country of origin/language in terms of popularity. That's quite a development effort. Not impossible, but will take considerable time none the less. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@AQFK: Especially not BLP articles, if you catch my meaning. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the Wiki software already supports this feature. For example, scroll to the bottom of a WikiNews article.[3] There are links for Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Digg, and several others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just a template, found here. We can't use the same exact method to implement them here because we'd have to edit every single article and add the template to each one. Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

mw:Extension:PageNotice might obviate that, if it were installed. Rd232 ^talk 10:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Please see the post five posts up from this one, which deals with the exact same thing, for my reasoning. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen both of these, and many others. They never seem to get real consensus. Perhaps we have another Persistant proposal to add to the list? Wabbott9 (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose One of the best things about Wikipedia is that it doesn't have a load of Facebook 'social media' bullshit and doesn't, like every other website on the planet, demand I "Like this" or "share this" or whatever. If I want to post something I see on Wikipedia to a social media site, I move my mouse to the URL bar, copy the URL and paste it into Facebook or Twitter or whatever the hot new thing of the week is. That is all the social media integration anyone needs: publish it on the web at a persistent URL and allow other people to link to it. Beyond that lies marketing douchebag territory. Let's not go there, okay? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone here is talking about what they want, or like. We should be considering what our users want; and what will encourage greater use of and participation in the 'pedia. And while that means doing research, anecdotally we can see that people do like, and use, such features. (For the record, my personal view is that such things belong in the browser, as bookmarklets or add-ons, rather than on the page. But I accept that that probably puts me in the minority). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 to both your meta point about needing to engage the users on this and you preference as to implementation via a plugin. Although I could also see having it as part of a skin, so user selectable as a reasonable option. Gonzo (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I'm noting that I made this a subsection of the above Facebook thread, as they are both pretty-much about the same thing. Second, how about this: Why doesn't somebody whip-up a WP gadget with social bookmarking functionality, and we can use that as a gauge. We can easily track how many people use it. If it gets an overwhelming amount of support, we can look further into implementing actual MediaWiki extensions like mw:Extension:Facebook. If it is not popular, or causes problems, then we have our answer. I would recommend this gadget only function in mainspace and File: space. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• comment Someone asked me to comment here from n:Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical#Facebook. I just wanted to mention there may be significant privacy considerations with integrating facebook. A click here to share on facebook button is ok (Since its passive, the user has to click in order to send info to facebook), but facebook like buttons, or logging in using facebook account, and pretty much all of mw:extension:Facebook allows facebook to gather information about our users essentially without their permission. (And is probably in violation of the privacy policy, although I don't think I've read the privacy policy so wouldn't be able to say for certain). Previous times this has been brought up on the mailing list its been shot down over privacy concerns recent example that's not quite the same because its about chapters. Bawolff (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • These issues are well known throughout the technical community and within the Foundation. Of course that doesn't mean that we can't do more than we do now, just that there are some specifics that we cannot do. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Page moves from userspace

Proposal: allow editors the option to suppress the creation of a redirect when moving a page out of userspace into mainspace (which would normally be a userspace draft-type page). That's probably harmless, is a common task, and prevents useless cross-namespace redirects. It's also a task which will likely become more common when the limitations on non-autoconfirmed users creating articles goes live, since many will be creating userspace drafts instead. Rd232 ^talk 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I know nothing about the technicalities of this while still not allowing suppression of redirects with other page moves. If it is technically feasible though, I would support it. It seems quite silly for people to have to request deletion of a cross namespace redirect that they didn't want in the first place. LadyofShalott 03:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea, but it widens a loophole. Moving pages from userspace means that any editor can easily create an article and get around WP:NPP. Suppressing redirects would make it less likely that an admin is going to come across it. I don't know if that's a reason to vote it down, I'm just pointing it out. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • "Moving pages from userspace" existed for centuries, well before NPP. In my past experience, existence or deletion of user-to-mainspace redirects did not affect visibility of articles in any way. There were, however, two drawbacks: (a) no NPP = less exposure (b) it's easy to mess up by editing mainspace article thinking that it's one's userspace draft. Deletion of a redirect removes the latter, but it's no big deal really, and then anyone who ran into redirect-related troubles will soon learn to {{db-user}} it, won't they? NVO (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Well that just points up an obvious flaw in NPP! Moves from userspace to mainspace ought to show up at NPP. Shall we make that a separate proposal? Rd232 ^talk 12:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • It's a bug in bugzilla, but I don't have the bugnumber right now. Anyway, if you find it, vote for it in bugzilla! Fram (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah yes: Template:Bugzilla. I've voted for it. Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
        • And I've just created Template:Bugzilla to cover redirects - a similar NPP loophole. Rd232 ^talk 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I brought up that exact problem in the idea lab (here) a few days ago but no-one has responded so far. The same issue also exists for articles expanded from redirects. doomgaze (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to the question: if/when the NPP loophole for moves from userspace is fixed (Template:Bugzilla), do we want this to happen? Rd232 ^talk 10:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a proposal for a pagemover group. It may be useful. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that new page moves from user to mainspace don't feed into NPP. I thinks it's absolutely essential they should, because if this loophole gets more widely known, it will be massively exploited. Not by the vandals, hoaxers, and attack pages, which are more spontaneous, but by the hard nosed SEO agents, corporate spammers, soccer fans, garage bands, and autobiographers promoting their first book or candidacy to the village council. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I question whether it is a useless cross-domain redirect. If the content existed in userspace, and now exists in mainspace, someone may have linked to the userspace version, so those links should redirect to mainspace. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The only links that its important to maintain are those in the mainspace, and there are no mainspace articles linking to userspace articles, any links that are added are removed on a weekly basis (From Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing links to the user space)--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Links from outside Wikipedia to the user version. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Add link to new pages to sidebar

Hi, I propose that a link to Special:Newpages is added to the interaction section of the sidebar. We currently have recent changes linked, and I think it would be useful to compliment it with pages too. AD 19:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've wanted that for months; I think it would help attract more users to start NPP, which until we get the changes implemented we still badly need. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree; when I used to do NPP, I installed a gadget that displayed new pages in the sidebar because typing it in the search bar every time was annoying. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you just put it on your watchlist? Peter jackson (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You can't watchlist any of the Special:SpecialPages, nor edit them for that matter. Yoenit (talk) 14:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That hadn't occurred to me. My list includes a category & some pages in project space, so I sort of vaguely assumed you could have anything. Peter jackson (talk) 15:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm so used now to tying WP:NEW and hitting the first link on that page that I don't really need it, but I would have appreciated it a few years back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be useful. Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How many of the en.wp visitors are looking for special:NewPages ? I never visit it. Doubt my mom does either. The sidebar is precious space and it should be used for the most required or most useful links for ALL readers. I'm not really sure if NewPages qualifies for that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

As User:Fuhghettaboutit mentioned above, new page patrollers rely on it extensively. One more link in the Interaction section isn't going to swamp the sidebar, and it's not as though Special:Newpages is soe off the wall page.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I find the live feed in the sidebar perfectly adequate. See User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

@TheDJ: how many visitors, if any, are looking for Recentchanges, which has been there forever? AD 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe a reader would view RecentChanges over NewPages. They could both be presented. I think it would be intriguing to visitors to view new pages being created on Wikipedia. Just because they aren't looking for it now doesn't mean they won't click the link when presented with it. Killiondude (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes is one thing, but let's not forget that the Wikipedia is read by even more people than those who edit and patrol it. The term New Pages is misleading: 80% of 'new pages' are the inapropriate ones that are going to be deleted - do we really want to draw the general readership's attention to them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

80%? Where'd you get that from? Recent changes is designed for editors, not readers, and contains things like vandalism that we are drawing attention to. New pages is an accurate name, it says exactly what it is. I still don't see any argument against including it when we have Recentchanges there. AD 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean "change bad" is not a good argument here? Say it ain't so! ;)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Aiken, we've done some work on determining what happens to pages, and ~80% of the mainspace pages written by new editors end up deleted within ~6 months (most within a week). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me at all, but how good the pages are isn't relevant to whether or not it would make a useful link - which it undoubtedly would. AD 21:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a .js script for that. It's in userspace. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see why it can't be the default. AD 12:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like a link New Pages to be added to the sidebar. I agree with this proposal.James500 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, there's probably already too much stuff in the sidebar for the casual reader. Recent changes is enough (and a standard link on most wikis), and has the new page link on top. For editors, it is easy to add New pages links to their userpages. —Kusma (t·c) 08:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If your computer was as slow as mine is, you would realise why I don't consider the link to new pages on my user page to be of much practical use. James500 (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion - How about allowing users to enable a link to Special:NewPages by using the gadgets section of Special:Preferences. James500 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Block log annotation

Following a recent Idea Lab discussion, there is now a means to annotate the "block a user" page (eg Special:Block/Rd232), by creating a page with a specific name in the relevant user's userspace. The idea is that this page would be fully protected and could be used by admins to provide clarifying links and notes for future reference. This could be particularly useful for warnings, edit restrictions, exonerations, and other things that might be relevant. Note: at present the code (at MediaWiki:Blockiptext) only displays the annotation page if it exists. This could be changed to provide a link to create the page, if the approach is thought desirable. PS If I'm correct in thinking admins can create pages protected by the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, that could be used to fully protect this type of page, including against creation by non-admins. PPS Current downside would be not showing the annotation page on the user's block log (i.e. Special:Log), but that's less important, and possibly fixable with JavaScript, or else in software (cf Template:Bug). Rd232 ^talk 21:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a useful idea, but on Monobook it forces the sidebar at least one complete pagelength down (when I visit Special:Block/Rd232). Killiondude (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That was a template issue (from {{cot}}/cob); I've fixed it temporarily by removing the template. I wanted the transcluded annotation page hatted though so as not to push the log entries too far down the page. Perhaps someone more template-techy can fix it. Rd232 ^talk 22:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The block log (and all logs, for that matter) can't have links to specific versions of pages, spercific deleted pages, or log entries of specific users or pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they can. Copy/paste works wonders. The problem was the character limit. Killiondude (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Should non-admins be able to view the page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

...no.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, for transparency. The aim is a clearer understanding of a user's block history; there's no reason to limit that understanding to admins. (In any case, AFAIK there's no current way to enforce admins-only viewing a page.) Rd232 public ^talk 00:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Um... it;s already inaccessable to non-admins. It's a page in the Special namespace, which requires sysop permissions to view or edit.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I guess it wasn't clear enough from the above, but the Special:Block bit is just loading a page from somewhere else, for convenience. That somewhere else is a page in the relevant user's userspace Special:Mypage/Blocklogannotation (which is why I suggested using Titleblacklist to prevent creation, so users can't go around creating these things willynilly; and then when the page is created by an admin it can be protected). Rd232 public ^talk 02:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Teenage Editors

I feel that we need to have a Wikipedia page/essay which explains the policys to teenage editors. I know we already have Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors but this is writen in a childish way wich could put teenage editors off. I would quite happly re-word that page if there was enough support. Oddbodz (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sort of person would be old enough to be insulted by the simple tone of the guidance for younger editors yet unable to understand the 'adult' tone of the policies themselves...? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 21:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Some teenagers may feel that their maturity is being questioned. They may, however, not want to read the full adult version. It's just a sugestion. Oddbodz (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Or they may not want to read them at all :P But I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect them to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 21:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an "adult" place; I'm all for contributions from a diverse range of ages and demographics, but if you need to be spoonfed policies because you can't/don't want to take the time to decipher our professional-style guidelines... that's not a good thing. Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The policies imo are generally readable enough by any 13+ year old. AD 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bah, don't listen to TT or Juliancolton. They're just trying to scare you off for some reason. You're just talking about an essay, so just click on: Wikipedia:Guidance for teenage editors and start writing. I'm sure that there are some people who will find your advice useful.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm—I think you've inspired me to write an essay called, Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. Oh no, there's one already. Good. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no need to assume anything. You provided the ammunition all on your own.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I know when I first joined I wasn't keen on reading through all the policies. Having a page where they are written in a more approachable manner would be helpful. Muskeato 22:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but aiming it at teenagers is a bit silly really, and would be very difficult not to sound patronising. The "nutshell" box at the top of policy pages usually sums them up quite well. AD 13:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This page looks like it sums up every policy briefly. AD 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, most of our policies and guidelines could do with re-writing to improve the prose. Collaborative editing has many strengths, but clear prose is not one of them. I tend not to bother reading any of them unless absolutely necessary. If I had read them before starting to edit, I wouldn't have started editing. DuncanHill (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If our current policies are written at such a level that someone with a (partial) high school education has trouble reading them, that's a problem that needs to be fixed. If the issue is that people just can't be bothered to read them, making a separate page probably won't help much. Mr.Z-man 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Undergraduate level education actually. I'm someone who loves to read. The problem with the policies is that the prose is just so dull and flat. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

But they're not supposed to be interesting, merely informative and comprehensible. They're not targetted at people who would read them for leisure purposes; rather, they're aimed at people who need to read them in order to edit Wikipedia effectively. To take a comparison, instructions for flat-pack furniture are usually pretty dry. These sorts of writings are designed for people who need to read them, not who want to read them. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 12:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If something is not interesting, people tend to forget the details and sometimes just skim. If you make things interesting, even funny, people are likely to remember what is said and want to read them. Comparing to a furniture construction illustration is not very useful here as that is something simple and straightforward that doesn't require much thought. The many wikipedia guidelines that people are expected to adhere to are another thing as people are expected to follow many of them, and you can't have people follow guidelines that they have never read. Granted some are common sense, but others aren't. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've got to agree. Most of the policies are pretty clear, clearer than many of our articles. Individual cases ought to be handled through discussion on their talk pages leading to consensus for clearer expressions in the policy pages themselves. If there's a problem, it's because often something isn't notable under our criteria, but seems notable to a new editor. Even that's not really a problem with our policies, more that the new editor just went with "notable" in a common use, rather than in the way we use it in policies. Wabbott9 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We're working on improving stuff! Only just begun - but please see the headway we're making at WP:V. I think possibly that saying that it's aimed at teenage editors may not be a good way to go - anyone who isn't a teenager (or even those teenagers who don't want to be perceived as teenagers) is quite likely just to "not go there". (Perceive it as irritatingly condescending.) What we need is a Wittgenstein's ladder approach, in all likelihood. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 04:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What we need to remember is that the Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. There is no software than can identify an editor's age, and the Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors was deliberately aimed at a target language level to be cogent for the 10 - 14 age group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy should be pretty clear:

1. Teenagers are human beings.
2. Human beings that have not been banned are welcome to edit Wikipedia.
3. Therefore teenagers who have not been banned are welcome to edit Wikipedia.

That is all. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

...and that is relevant how? ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 10:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that I'm not totally sure if we need to spend time reworking Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. I guess I just don't see the point, unless we can find good reasons, preferably from said younger users, why specific outreach is needed, and those younger users can work to ensure it isn't condescending. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Install extension Pchart4mw - for charts drawing

Since we only have the <timeline> extension for simple (bar only) chart drawing, I propose to install the Pchart4mw extension to have the ability to create various types of real charts/graphs. Thank you for your support!--Kozuch (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support I would have it tested on one of the test wikis first, but this extension does seem to be a net positive for visuals in articles. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounds like a very useful feature, so long as it goes through a series of tests before widespread use (support, efficiency, output...). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how correct "extension installation" works here on EN Wikipedia, but I suppose community consensus is the very important part of the proccess. So yes, after we hopefully have consensus the technical part will begin (probably extensin code review, making sure it performs ok etc.?). If someone can supply info about correct steps in the process this would be welcome. I was also thinking of enabling it first on a smaller wiki (for instance Czech Wikipedia), but I did not ask for consensus there yet.--Kozuch (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Support This makes data editable as opposed to user externally-created charts. This will also bring some visual consistency. And finally this will make new chart making easy as pie. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
• How does this compare with the (many) options listed at WP:Graphs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not know "Template:Visualizer" or "Template:Pie chart" - one of the differences I see - these run on Toolserver (whose stability and availability is a big "?" sometimes). This would be a local extension which will perform much better I guess. --Kozuch (talk) 07:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Pchart4mw has more chart types, it seems. They also look better (in my opinion) and are more customizable. InverseHypercube 00:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Makes sense. We probably should have a comprehensive guide explaining the use of the extension, though. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:11pm • 05:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support It would be extremely useful and would reduce the number of charts uploaded to Commons. As well, the chats could easily be edited and provide a consistent look. InverseHypercube 00:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Really short Wikipedia URLs

I think that Wikipedia should get their own article URL shortening service. There are 20 million articles in its >250 versions. So 6 alphanumeric characters should be enough to list them all (52^6 = 20 billion, or 70 million articles per language). How about an automatic system that changes en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_universe into wkpshrt.org/5egF4w and pops up in each article page you visit to share easily? That can go for other Wikimedia projects as well. How do we make it? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason that Wikimedia/the MediaWiki software should implement this when there are good third party tools available to do it easily, though (TinyURL.com, bit.ly, etc...)?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• • It is worth noting that some projects already have slightly shortened urls (http://enwp.org, there's one of the English Wikinews and probably others too). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, enwp.org works for any WP page ( http://enwp.org/Barack_Obama for example). And the Wikinews one is enwn.net, which works differently (more like a bit.ly service). But I agree with the above. There are way too many third-party services out there. And we want to make Wikipedia less socialized. Anyone who wants to share a short link should already know how to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

      ...why do we "want to make Wikipedia less socialized."? Maybe that's what you'd like, which is fine, but I certainly don't want us to be more anti-social than we already are. :(
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we don't want to have to ask Big brother to do everything for us. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

... no one is, so I don't get your point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think bit.ly's approach makes more sense - links are only given when someone wants to link something. By contrast, your approach covers all articles, linked to or not, and only articles. So for example, as a test, bit.ly/lNbS69 now links to editing this particular section of this page. I wasn't asked to register. I don't know how long it will last, but it seems like a versatile solution. But I'm not sure making and archiving new custom links in this fashion would be within the mission of Wikipedia. True, Big Brother is probably listening in, but alas, the same is probably true of Wikipedia or any other site. Look at how many traceroutes run through Reston, Virginia, put it that way. Wnt (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Silly National Wildlife Federation spying on us Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgiveness day, 7 August

I was just thinking about a "forgiveness day", and it turns out there is one - 7 August [4]. So I propose that we adopt this on Wikipedia, to help spread peace and good will among editors and encourage them to try and put aside past conflicts. The idea is that we'd knock up a user template along the general lines of "I'm sorry for my contribution to our past conflicts, in honour of International Forgiveness Day I hope we can put these behind us and achieve better collaboration in future." (off the top of my head; much improvement possible; not forgetting to encourage the user to add a personalised addendum). {{Cookie}}s and the like would be options for those as wants. Users would be encouraged to leave these templates on or around the day for users they've had some disagreements with. This would be most effective advertised annually via a watchlist notice, but that might be a bit ambitious at this point (maybe in future years). That's all. Rd232 public ^talk 23:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That'd be great fun, if only human minds allowed someone to get rid of grudges on a whim. Since they don't, the result would be either (a) something completely meaningless or (b) something easier to game than a multiple-choice test. Ironholds (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"if only human minds allowed someone to get rid of grudges on a whim..." - I think you need to reconsider what forgiveness means. In addition, a public commitment helps people sustain behaviours, so the public declaration is not meaningless, even if it doesn't work out in every case. I don't see where gaming comes into it. Rd232 public ^talk 02:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ironholds to an extent. I no longer bear ill will to a number of people that I've had fights with, but there are some things that cannot be forgiven. I think that we could adapt it to a day of talking out differences and making commitments to settling disputes more amicably, but it won't, say, stop the NFCC war or anything of that caliber of conflict. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"I think that we could adapt it to a day of talking out differences and making commitments to settling disputes more amicably..." - well that's the general idea. Forgiveness seems a good starting point for that, since it's often necessary, but if someone wants to suggest an alternative approach, I'm open to suggestions. At root, I just think an annual "let's put this shit behind us and try again to be really collaborative" day would be good. Rd232 public ^talk 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I just followed that link in the OP's post. It's amusing that the "Worldwide Forgiveness Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)3 tax-deductible organization." (My bolding.) Should I forgive them for not arranging deductions for 95% of the world's population? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgive you for being a hater and for undermining a good idea only for the sake of hearing your own voice. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A hater? Oh dear. I will forgive you for your paranoia. HiLo48 (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It is neither amusing nor relevant, since the organization isn't involved in the proposal in any way. I came across the organization in searching for a "forgiveness day", an idea I had, and this came up and it makes sense to use an existing date that someone is already promoting (not least to avoid the need to pick a date from scratch). If there are any alternatives to 7 August already being promoted, let's hear them. Rd232 public ^talk 11:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It has the advantage of falling on my birthday. (Forgive me for pointing that out!) :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Curses! People will assume it's a conspiracy! :) Rd232 public ^talk 02:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't all days be foregiveness days? To forgive is one of the great Christian virtues, and it would be a shame if we confined this ideal to a mere one of the three hundred and sixty-five days in the year. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

We pagans, on the other hand.... --Nuujinn (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If after trying to get through the behaviour of a person is still not satisfactory I think a measured amount of retribution is called for, it helps the world go round, without it you get jerks and freeloaders. After that one should check and see if things are now satisfactory. So what exactly is the point of having a particular date for forgiveness? Is it for people who don't know when to stop retribution or somehow otherwise to let them get on with their lives? Dmcq (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of forgiveness; gimmicks, not so much. I'm afraid this will come across as a gimmick, however much that might not be the intent.

I'm not necessarily opposed. Who knows; it might do some good. But it will definitely also make some people roll their eyes. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"All other namespace" tab in dropdowns

Currently, dropdown menus like the ones in "user contribution" pages allow you to search by individual namespace of by all namespaces overall. With many users, more than half of user contributions are in the article namespace. Is it possible to add an item in the dropdown menu allowing you to - at one go - search all contributions other than those in the article space? This sort of addition would also be useful in the similar dropdown menus in "new pages", "what links here", "related changes", etc. Grutness...wha? 02:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea; it's been around a while. The relevant bug is Template:Bug, from June 2008; it has 4 duplicates. Voting for it can't do any harm.... Rd232 public ^talk 11:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Category →'s at the bottom of articles

A major pet peeve of mine are laundry lists. Oh boy do I hate them! Why is it that so many articles are categorized inside categories to which they are also categorized? To look at what should be done, here is a good example: Category:Rivers. So how do we get people to not overcategorize? Imagine the following scheme at the bottom of each categorized page:

---

Categories:

• Contents → Articles → Main topic classifications → Geography → Places → Fluvial landforms → Rivers → Rivers by continent → Rivers of Europe → Rivers of Albania
• Contents → Articles → Main topic classifications → Geography → Geography-related lists → Lists by continent → Europe-related lists → Albania-related lists

---

Ideally, the shortest path between the top category Category:Contents and any category selected should be chosen.

And of course, in practice, only the first parent level should be shown. Example:

---

Categories: Rivers of Europe → Rivers of Albania | Europe-related lists → Albania-related lists

---

In general, only one parent level need be shown.

This would prevent people from over-categorizing articles. This would also make for a much nicer and functional outline to be the pervasive norm.

Signed, a laundry list hater, siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 03:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment This would be technically impractical: Graph traversal is generally a hard thing to do right and would require significant work from MediaWiki developers to implement and significant system resources. More detailed reasoning than "Oh boy do I hate them!" is needed to justify the technical and human resources needed to implement this. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: wouldn't it be more practical to come at the problem more directly? The issue is page or category A appearing in both category X as well as in category Y, the parent of X. (Sometimes this behaviour is desirable, but usually it isn't.) Perhaps Wikipedia:HotCat could somehow flag such cases when a HotCat user visits A. Rd232 public ^talk 10:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As long as users were made very aware of the cases when that behaviour is desirable (such as the much-discussed and occasionally understood eponymous categories question).--Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Are they identified in some way that HotCat could feasibly do that? Rd232 public ^talk 21:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to seperate template warnings for edit warring and breaking 3RR

A couple of weeks ago I made this suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace/Archive 12#Edit warring and breaking 3RR: not always the same thing!, and though it has not been rejected there has not been much response. So, thinking it would be a shame to let what I feel would be a very useful change go, I have decided to bring it here. Please see the link for the details of why I feel this would be beneficial. U-Mos (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a need for a separate template, as the wording of Template:uw-3rr implies accusation of edit warring. Which, as you pointed out, is not always the case and should not be automatically assumed in all cases of multiple reverts within a 24-hr. time frame.--JayJasper (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing edit conflict notice from the sandbox

I am not sure that there is the technology to do this, but here goes!! Tonight (June 28 2011) I had been trying out citation methods on Wikipedia: Sandbox, and got the message - "Some one else has been starting to edit this since you began, resulting in an edit conflict". My plea is for there to be a removal - if this is technologically possible - of the edit conflict tag from the sandbox, as surely, it is more than likely that there will be several people editing there simultaneously. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I remember some one raised the question of edit conflicts some time ago earlier this year (2011) - did anything come of it? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, by I do know that reasonably experienced users needn't be using the main WP sandbox. I've knocked up a userbox {{Mysandbox}} which makes it easy to create a user subpage sandbox. (This could probably be linked from some relevant help pages etc, if anyone can think of where.) PS I did a while ago suggest using Javascript to give every user easy access to their own subpage sandbox, by adding an extra tab on their user and user talk page. Rd232 public ^talk 21:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that - giving people the right to use their own personal sandboxes on their own userpages seems a marvellous idea! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Boycott

I propose creating a list, possibly at WP:BOYCOTT, of those companies that purposefully and repeatedly attempt to damage Wikipedia's credibility and usefulness by turning it into a marketing resource. Wikipedia readers would be advised to refuse to do business with any business on the list. Currently advertisements and spam just get reverted, deleted, blacklisted, and the editors blocked, but that just leaves the spammers exactly where they were before if they get caught and a big payoff if they don't. Instead, there should be serious, real-life consequences for these actions, and there might be enough Wikipedia readers who would boycott these companies for making damaging Wikipedia a part of their corporate policy to make getting caught spamming start to sting a little. Proposed criteria for inclusion would be any company that: writes an article about themselves that gets WP:G11ed, engages in linkspam, replaces neutral encyclopedic content with a press release, or hires anyone to do so on their behalf. 99.164.32.24 (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Any such list would probably result in companies spamming on behalf of their competitors. --Yair rand (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. That's the true spirit of a proper security consultant. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this sort of thing would be better implemented "off-wiki", so to speak. You could put together a list of companies that spam, share it with any interested partied, and do it unconnected with Wikipedia (say on a blog or some such thing where you have control over who posts). Just make sure you let the companies know why you're boycotting them. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As Yair rand explained this would be exploited. It really would be, it isn't a joke. And it wouldn't even have been an unforseen consequence. I would not want to be associated with this sort of damage to innocent companies. We're better off just dealing with the problem straightforwardly as at present by blocking spammers.

Wouldn't this give legal problems? Even if we recognize, revert and block them, companies can easily deny relation with spammers, and then accuse wikipedia of plotting against them. It may be better to accept spammers as a "fact of life", that must be kept at bay but which can not be completely erased Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template for Regiowikis

Hi all. Regiowikis are wikis focused on a geographical area. I propose to create a new template {{Regiowiki}} to link to these encyclopedias in the articles about cities. Example on the right for Tomsk. Just a link in "External links" section would be nice but this is a way to promote free knowledge creation.

By the way, I'm working on a list/map for all regiowikis in the world (User:Emijrp/Regiowikis), so if you know about any missing regiowiki, please, add it! Regards. emijrp (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses! I have several objections:

• Templates like you made are currently only used for other wikimedia projects like wiktionary or wikicommons. Readers will think that "regiowiki" are a part of wikipedia, when it is not and we absolutely no control over its contents.
• The regiowiki is written in a foreign language, but we are the English wikipedia. External links to websites in non-english languages are strongly discouraged (WP:NONENGEL)
• We don't link to open wikis normally, unless they have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". wp:ELNO#12
• We don't add external links to "promote free knowledge creation", we do it because they external links improve the article. Yoenit (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. 1) OK, a new design is desired. 2) OK, only links to English writtens wikis. 3) I'm OK with this. 4) Come on! That is a side effect ; ) Regards. emijrp (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this to be a good idea. A special template for a external link gives undue weight to the link over the others, and certainly the official web site of a region (if exists) should be more important than a wiki. Cambalachero (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Limit the Wikilove feature to specific user groups

I'm sure that this should be disallowed for non-autoconfirmed users, and only in an opt-in basis for non-admins, since Wikipedia isn't a social networking site.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up... Next thing you know we can't even say 'hello' anymore. — Edokter (talk) — 22:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think Jasper's right, and it's only a matter of time before you see why. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

We may not a be social network, but we are a community. I don't believe in blocking features for beginning editors, especially those that promote collaboration. — Edokter (talk) — 22:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what you'll be blocking Edoktor; have you looked at the "make your own" option? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect we'll come to rue that one.--SPhilbrickT 01:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a seriously Californian off-the-wall crazy idea. I quite like it though, better than all the gooey "love" stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 01:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously jealous of California MF? The 7th largest economy in the world. Almost all development and manufacturing of anything important in medical devices, telecommunications, social networking (though I might consider it a negative), Wikipedia (OK, another negative), automobile design, venture capital, computer devices, and gorgeous, intelligent women. In other words, without California, the US would be a backwards, Republican-run, anti-science, fascist religious state, pretty much laughed at by Californians. And we wouldn't let you have our excellent pot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone be jealous of California? A state that appears to have more lawyers per square mile than any other place on Earth? Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I opened this thread was because of some recent trolling incidents with things related to Wikilove (like this IP). Besides, many non-autoconfirmed users don't know the meanings of barnstars, etc. Therefore, I think it's reasonable if non-autoconfirmed users can opt in to Wikilove by applying for Confirmed status. It's too risky to allow IPs to opt in.

"...can we all get along?" Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Opt out?

How about a way to opt out of receiving these unwanted advances? Apparently there's a way to opt out of the button to give these silly notices, but recipients has no such option. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO the opt-out checkbox should block both sending and receiving -- it's highly unlikely that someone would opt out from sending but want to receive. For users who've disabled it, we could visibly disable the heart symbol to other users to make it clear what's going on.

I think it's inevitable that a small but vocal faction of users will dislike this feature, and this is a simple way to mitigate conflict about it.--Eloquence* 02:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia is anything like Facebook, then they will opt us in automatically, and make it impossible to figure out how to opt out!  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to truly opt out. It is possible to make the button not appear to a user that has opted out; I can think of one fairly simple way that would work. But since anyone could manually type out any message they want I don't see a point in opting out of receiving the messages. Removing the button to send, on the other hand, could be useful and indeed I have done that for myself. Prodego ^talk 03:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think removing the button for opted-out users is good enough, since most of the Wikilove materials are hard to find for users who aren't familiar with what they are.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like people also want an automated reply. I guess appropriate ones might be to

• A rabbit icon 'I freeze like a rabbit when given wikilove'
• A boiled rabbit icon 'I get obsessed when given wikilove, look out'
• A rabbit pie 'We can share a meal and be friends'

I'm sure the Wikipedia software could look for a list of automated responses associated with a user and pick out the appropriate one for edits about to make to a users page so these could be shown in the preview. Hmm if they change their edit correspondingly then a different message might come out - one could almost work in a whole Eliza type conversation here ;-) Dmcq (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hide red talk page links for deletion discussions

I'm proposing that we add something to the common JS or CSS file that hides redlinked talk page tabs for deletion discussions. I've only ever seen one editor confused by this, but surely this tab is rarely if ever used. There should not be any meta-discussion about the discussions, all that needs to be said should be said on the page. If, by some wacky circumstance, a talk page must be created, then the tab will show as blue. Any editor that knows enough to know that the talk page must be created should also know how to type "talk" into the URL. To go to a discussion and find there is an empty discussion tab is a little counter-intuitive. This way there is no chance for even momentary confusion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

They're usually not used, but sometimes they are. It's sometimes helpful to move extended analysis of sources there, or lengthy tangential discussions. I've participated in a handful of AfDs where this happened. It's sort of analogous to the admin noticeboards: you "talk" on WP:AN or WP:ANI, but "meta-talk" goes on WT:AN or WT:ANI. 28bytes (talk) 08:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this sometimes does happen, but the difference is that WP:AN never has a red talk page tab, whereas AfDs almost always do, by their nature. Once you create a Village Pump talk page, that tab is blue forever. Also, new users often need to go to AfD, as they are the ones most often creating pages that need to be deleted. And again, if the the tab is blue it should not be hidden. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Jump List support

Hi, as you know, Microsoft added in Internet Explorer 9 the support for website pinning on the taskbar ; I believe that Wikipedia should adopt this feature to increase its share and be easier to use and reach.

It's possible to use Jump List also in Chrome thanks to an extension (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/foekkphhdncclpelbmngokikjnkikpad) and Mozilla is actively work to implement them in future releases of Firefox (http://areweprettyyet.com/5/desktopApps/).

More info at: http://buildmypinnedsite.com/

The Dark Melon (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)